PDA

View Full Version : Sotomayor confirmed (Surprise!)


Aguila Blanca
6th August 2009, 22:19
http://my.att.net/s/editorial.dll?fromspage=ch/c.htm&categoryid=&only=y&bfromind=7775&eeid=6729141&_sitecat=1522&dcatid=0&eetype=article&render=y&ac=9&ck=&ch=ne

Sotomayor OK'd for Supreme Court in historic vote

Published: 8/6/09, 8:26 PM EDT
By JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS

WASHINGTON (AP) - Sonia Sotomayor won confirmation Thursday as the nation's first Hispanic Supreme Court justice, a history-making Senate vote that capped a summer-long debate heavy with ethnic politics and hints of high court fights to come.

The third woman in court history, she'll be sworn in Saturday as the 111th justice and the first nominated by a Democrat in 15 years.

The Senate vote was 68-31 to confirm Sotomayor, President Barack Obama's first Supreme Court nominee, with Democrats unanimously behind her but most Republicans lining up in a show of opposition both for her and for the president's standards for a justice.

The 55-year-old daughter of Puerto Rican parents was raised in a South Bronx housing project and educated in the Ivy League before rising to the highest legal echelons, spending the past 17 years as a federal judge. She watched the vote on TV at a federal courthouse in New York City, among friends and colleagues.

Republicans argued she'd bring personal bias and a liberal agenda to the bench. But Democrats praised Sotomayor as an extraordinarily qualified mainstream moderate and touted her elevation to the court as a milestone in the nation's journey toward greater equality and a reaffirmation of the American dream.

Obama, the nation's first black president, praised the Senate's vote as "breaking another barrier and moving us yet another step closer to a more perfect union." He planned to welcome Sotomayor at the White House next week.

Minutes before the vote, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., the Judiciary Committee chairman, called it one for the ages. "Years from now ... we will remember this time when we crossed paths with the quintessentially American journey of Sonia Sotomayor."

Senators took the rare step of assembling at their desks for the vote, rising from their seats to call out "aye" or "nay." The longest-serving senator, 91-year-old Robert Byrd of West Virginia who has been in frail health following a long hospitalization, was brought in in a wheelchair to vote in Sotomayor's favor. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., suffering from brain cancer, was the only senator absent.

Sotomayor replaces retiring Justice David Souter, a liberal named by a Republican president, and she is not expected to alter the court's ideological split.

Still, Republicans and Democrats were deeply at odds over confirming Sotomayor, and the battle over her nomination highlighted profound philosophical disagreements that will shape future fights over the court's makeup as Obama looks to another likely vacancy - perhaps more than one - while he's in the White House.

In the final tally, nine Republicans joined majority Democrats and the Senate's two independents to support Sotomayor's confirmation. They included the Senate's few GOP moderates and its lone Hispanic Republican, retiring Sen. Mel Martinez of Florida, as well as conservative Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, the party's third-ranking leader.

GOP critics decried Obama's call for "empathy" in a justice, painting Sotomayor as the embodiment of an inappropriate standard that would let a judge bring her personal whims and prejudices to the bench.

Her writings and speeches "reflect a belief not just that impartiality is not possible, but that it's not even worth the effort," said Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., the minority leader. "In Judge Sotomayor's court, groups that didn't make the cut of preferred groups often found that they ended up on the short end of the empathy standard."

Democrats, for their part, hailed the vote as a breakthrough achievement for the country, on par with enactment of civil rights laws. They warned Republicans they risked a backlash from Hispanic voters in the short term and an enduring black mark on their party in history books by opposing Sotomayor's confirmation.

"Those who oppose her for fear of her unique life experience do no justice to her or our nation. Their names will be listed in our nation's annals of elected officials one step behind America's historic march forward," said Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Democrat.

Hispanic activists agreed.

"Justice Sotomayor's eminent qualifications and wise committee testimony shattered a glass ceiling today," said Thomas Saenz of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund. Of Republican foes, he added, "History - and the fast-growing community of Latino voters - will judge these senators harshly."

A number of GOP senators argued Sotomayor's speeches and record made her unacceptable. They pointed to rulings in which they said she showed disregard for gun rights, property rights and job discrimination claims by white employees. And they repeatedly cited comments she had made about the role that a judge's background and perspective can play, especially a 2001 speech in which she said she hoped a "wise Latina" judge would usually make better decisions than a white man.

"She has bluntly advocated a judicial philosophy where judges ground their decisions not in the objective rule of law, but in the subjective realm of personal 'opinions, sympathies and prejudices,'" said Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the senior Republican on the Judiciary Committee.

Republicans have been particularly critical of Sotomayor's position on the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. She was part of a federal appeals court panel in New York that ruled this year that the amendment limits only the federal government - not states - a decision in keeping with previous Supreme Court precedent. Gun rights supporters said her panel shouldn't have called the issue "settled law," and they criticized her for refusing during her confirmation hearings to go beyond what the high court has said and declare that the Second Amendment applies to the states.

The National Rifle Association, which hadn't weighed in on Supreme Court nominations past, strongly opposed her and threatened to downgrade its ratings of any senator who voted to confirm Sotomayor. The warning may have influenced some Republicans who were initially considered possible supporters but later announced their opposition, citing gun rights as a key reason.

Curt Levey of the conservative Committee for Justice, asserted that "it is unlikely that a president will ever again choose a Supreme Court nominee with a record that can be characterized as hostile to the Second Amendment."

In the two most recent confirmation votes, the Senate had approved Chief Justice John Roberts by a 78-22 vote and Samuel Alito by 58-42.

d90king
7th August 2009, 16:32
Great post as usual AB. I am not surprised in the least unfortunately. I can't believe that our Congress just confirmed a judge who was just overturned by SCOTUS less than 30 days ago.

My biggest hope is that America is ready to clean house in 2010. It is time to really start sending a message to DC's leadership. They work for US not their self serving agendas and the agendas of those who paid to get them elected.

Aguila Blanca
7th August 2009, 20:13
Personally, I am ambivalent about sending a message right at this moment. My fervent hope is that the gun grabbers go overboard in flexing their (perceived) muscles and alienate and antagonize such a large percentage of the population that the mid-term elections result in a massive house-cleaning.

I further hope that B. H. Obama becomes another one-term president, in the mold of one James Earl ("just call me Jimmy") Carter. To that end, the more Obama oversteps his authority and gets people REALLY angry, the better off the country will be in the long term. I believe if Obama manages to win a second term the United States will be fortunate if it can claim status as a third-world country. I think we would be so far down the tubes after 8 years of Obamanation that we'd be lucky to be considered fourth-world.

Old Fashioned
7th August 2009, 21:15
It amazed me that she sidestepped almost every question put to her during the confirmation hearings with nothing said about it except for a few conservatives on the committee. Actually, the hearing was a complete waste of time and money. I realize that nominees would be reluctant to comment on anything that would be likely to come before the court that they would serve on if confirmed but Sotomayer carried that to extremes. My own senator voted for her and that raises questions that will have to be addressed when he comes up for re-election.

d90king
7th August 2009, 21:23
I have high hopes for 2010, hope is about all I have left. As scary as Carters legacy is, this administration scares me more. I have never witnessed a more power hungry administration in many regards. Power equals control, and once you lose control, you have then lost your freedoms.

They are manipulating the system through economic control on a state level that has not been seen in a very long time. They are using money to reshape states dependence on the federal government. Once you have the feds meddling in states affairs because they hold the purse strings, you are looking for trouble.

They continue to offer bailouts under new names, "cash for clunkers" is just the latest. They want control of health care, banking, auto manufacturing, freedom of speech, how their policy is portrayed by the media and much, much more.

Our fiscal responsibility has gone completely out the window and we could face dire consequences because of it long term. We can't even get people to by 5 year bonds. China is starting to run from our paper and everybody else is broke. We have lost all checks and balances in Washington and we better fix it fast.

We can only pray that they don't get to reshape SCOTUS. Sotomayor doesn't change much on the court for the time being. I just hope it stays that way. Thank God for Roberts and his leadership and wisdom...

We need more people like the soldier who skewered Mcaskil to get fed up.
Link:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuBKgifvbE0

kenhwind
7th August 2009, 22:41
Well I'm here too, iknew that one of the Florida Senators was going to vote for Sotomayer, and I'm sure the other one a democrat did.
It seems like "the Obama" is losing it. The Gov't is gonna have to put up with the "heath care deniers" and "Tea Partys" or start rounding people up.
If you threaten voters at a Phillie poll station that's OK, but if you oppose "Obama Care" you're a mob.
I fervently agree with every post on this thread.
"From my cold (WARM) dead hands"

Old Fashioned
11th August 2009, 15:30
What bothered me about the confirmation was that everyone was saying that she was so qualified, particularly the democrats but also republicans. However, that is only part of it. What everyong seemed to overlook or ignore is that how that knowledge, training, and experience is used is just as important as the actual qualifications. Some senators took the approach that although they had problems with her comments and some decisions, they could not justify, based on her qualifications, voting against her. I would suggest that "qualification" is not restricted to formal schooling and experience on the bench but includes, equally important, how that schooling and experience is applied. Too much was overlooked for the sake of politics. I hope that it does not come back to haunt us.

Chilo45
11th August 2009, 18:47
Great post as usual AB. I am not surprised in the least unfortunately. I can't believe that our Congress just confirmed a judge who was just overturned by SCOTUS less than 30 days ago.
---------------------------------------------------------
Having a judgment overturned is not and should not be a basis over not qualifying, as at her level judicial evaluations are based on the rule of law as it is understood at the time and based on the arguments presented - as I believe she ruled on the evidence presented at the trial / hearing.
----------------------------
My biggest hope is that America is ready to clean house in 2010. It is time to really start sending a message to DC's leadership. They work for US not their self serving agendas and the agendas of those who paid to get them elected.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hope is one thing but making a concerted effort to implement change is the way to effect said change. I for one want to see the Jeffersonian rule of serving your Nation's interests implemented: Serve for no more than 4 years and then do not return or try to return until 3 additional years have passed. And take away all of their special perks; pay them a fair salary while they serve but make them pay into Social Security. That way we will see effective change in Washington; until then business as usual no matter what you hear.

Let's see how many anti-personal ownership of firearms cases get to her level. Most likely none.

d90king
11th August 2009, 21:32
Having a judgment overturned is not and should not be a basis over not qualifying, as at her level judicial evaluations are based on the rule of law as it is understood at the time and based on the arguments presented - as I believe she ruled on the evidence presented at the trial / hearing.

Generally speaking I would agree with you, however at the appellate level it does take on greater meaning as they are the last line before SCOTUS. It is unusual to have an appellate judge with a record of being overturned by SCOTUS nominated in the first place. She was nominated before SCOTUS made a ruling. I am sure that those factors were discussed while vetting and determined not significant, but it is always a strike against a judge when they are overturned.

SCUTUS had the same evidence she had in the Ricci case, and they disagreed with her findings based upon the law. Are you aware of her ruling on 2a and state rights?

Hope is one thing but making a concerted effort to implement change is the way to effect said change. I for one want to see the Jeffersonian rule of serving your Nation's interests implemented: Serve for no more than 4 years and then do not return or try to return until 3 additional years have passed. And take away all of their special perks; pay them a fair salary while they serve but make them pay into Social Security. That way we will see effective change in Washington; until then business as usual no matter what you hear.

I couldn't agree more with you on term limits. I have always felt that lifelong politicians were counterproductive. Their place is to serve the people whom elected them. Instead they are self serving and serve those who pay for their election or jobs in their districts.

I would like to see a nice balance between Conservative and Libertarian... We need to get back to the basic fabric of the constitution which is what makes our country so great.

Chilo45
11th August 2009, 23:40
I would like to see a nice balance between Conservative and Libertarian... We need to get back to the basic fabric of the constitution which is what makes our country so great.

I fear that the only way to effectively make that happen would be a true revolution against the way our government has been allowed to migrate from what it was intended to be by its founders.

I would not ever want to be put into the position of being put into a job where it was a lifetime appointment - that in itself to me is unconstitutional.

I enjoy my right to bear arms and I carry concealed most days (when not at work or where it is posted) but around the house, community I am carrying. I do not support any amending of the 2nd amendment except when those citizens violate our laws then they lose their right.

Wishing that my prediction NEVER takes place and that common sense can once again take the place of ranting and verbal violence that today seems to be the norm among those that wish to be heard - they all want a piece of the headlines. And I hope that the SCOTUS as a group will abide by the Constitution and not try to remake it into their own imaginations.